Skip to main content

tv   Inside Washington  PBS  November 21, 2009 12:00am-12:30am EST

12:00 am
12:01 am
>> production assistance for "inside washington" was provided by allbritton communications and "politico," reporting on the legislative, executive, and political arena. >> i believe this decision is dangerous, i believe is misguided, i believe it is unnecessary. >> this week on "inside washington," angry reaction to the decision to try the 9/11 suspects in new york. >> i am not scared of what khalid sheik mohammed has to say on file, and no one else needs to be afraid, either. >> the president in china but was there too much kowtowing and not enough spending tall? >> this congress and
12:02 am
presidency will sign into law a health-care plan for all americans. >> it is the same thing you did not like in august and will not taste any better at thanksgiving dinner on thursday. >> the confusion over new government guidelines on the mammograms. captioned by the national captioning institute the attorney general of the united states kicked up a firestorm when he announced his decision to try the accused architect of the 9/11 attacks in new york federal court, not far from ground zero. try him by a civilian court, not by tribunal. >> how could you be more likely
12:03 am
to get a conviction in federal court when khalid sheik mohammed has already asked to plead guilty before a military commission and be executed? [applause] >> i am not going to base the determination on where these cases are going to be brought on what the terrorists, what are murder wants to do. he will not select the prosecution then you -- venue. >> senator lindsey graham says this is an aversion of the justice system. what do you think, nina? >> i think it is a very hard decision that the attorney general made, and i will point out, as he did, that we have had a military commissions for seven years and we have not brought anybody to try because of problems with the commission. there is lots of evidence we don't know about and he will be convicted. but you don't think a forum this way -- you don't say a loud, "we
12:04 am
will convict him in this one the." that does not mean there are not problems. >> senator graham asked holders if there was any case in american history where someone was taken abroad and convicted in the united states. his answer was, "i don't know, i will find out." graham's answer was, "i will say the time, it has ever happened." holder was absolutely in over his head at the hearing. >> colby? >> when you look at the terrorists who have been convicted in civilian courts, it is a pretty long list. the issue bomber, jose padilla, zacarias moussaoui, tried on the
12:05 am
same explosive charge. it is not as if we of not been down this road before. >> evan, the critics right? this is a dangerous perversion of the justice system? >> you will never reconcile the needs of the security state and the democracy that wants to have the rule of law. they are irreconcilable. this is living proof of it. i am for it because i think you have to do it, but i do not pretend that there are not risks. he has already been convicted. >> evan is absolutely right. there are down sides to this. the biggest downside is the danger in manhattan. it is like painting a red target on it. they think they can do it, fine. i am not sure it is the right decision. you will still be paying something of a target even if it is a military tribunal. >> if a holder opposed military
12:06 am
tribunals in principle, it would been a coherent argument. he could not explain why on the same day he would send khalid sheik mohammed to a civilian court in new york but would send al-rahim al-nashiri -- would end up in a military court. al-rahim al-nashiri attacked a military target. we have hit ships through all our history. it is not a war crime to attack a warship. it is a war crime to deliberately attacked civilians on -- as happened on 9/11. and yet the guy who does 9/11 gets all the protections in this civilian trial and al-rahim al- nashiri will have none of those in the military trial. >> uss cole versus the pentagon and the world trade center, colby. >> the bush administration was
12:07 am
guilty of the same thing atrocities as the obama administration of doing. -- guilty of the same thing as charles says the obama administration is guilty of doing. >> what is its civilian court first khalid sheik mohammed -- why is it civilian court for ksm? >> if you can lay out the evidence -- this guy was not admitting in open court that he did this, but when all over guantanamo saying that he did this. if you have a trial that shows the world that the calculated disregard for life that he was responsible for, you may in a system of justice that is a model of something to show the world. >> how do you keep waterboarding out of this truck is prejudicial? -- out of this trial is prejudicial?
12:08 am
>> i don't think you can. charles is trying to apply logic something that doedefies logic. it is about the symbolism. in this complicated or whatever, we are holding on to a little shred of the -- rule of the. this complicated war on terror, we are hold onto a little shred of rule law. >> if the idea is to show the world the superiority of our system and rule of law, how can you have eric holder asked in the hearing what if ksm is acquitted and his answer is, "failure is not an option"? with the system of justice in our system, of course failure is an option. >> it shows how congress has not dealt with the entire question of what you do with people who need -- we do need to detain but not convict. >> every under -- everybody
12:09 am
understands that he will not walk. it is a show trial, a farce. >> the president in china. >> we will deal will whole list of global issues of which the u.s.-kind cooperation is critical. -- u.s.-china corp. is critical. >> the people's liberation army or to start serenade him with "i just called to say i love you." over the past 10 years, as american factories closed down, thousands of chinese factories have opened, a trade deficit with china has grown to 268 billion, china is our largest creditor. >> i remember 20 years ago, 1980, when i was on the board of the world bank, china had a per
12:10 am
capita income of about two to dollars. -- $250. now it is one of the largest in the world. china is our largest creditor, open up to a lot of u.s. investment and a lot of u.s. companies are making money in china -- >> it is cheaper to manufacture goods there than here. >> there is a code dependency. one time we had to pay the saudis, and now it has moved to china. we have to work with that. it is not about kowtowing to anybody. >> specifically, china has that to keep buying our debt. if we are going to keep our interest rates down and not have another massive recession, we have to keep the chinese happy. we have to pay them tribute and go and be nice to them so that it will continue to buy the debt
12:11 am
we have racked up. >> what they decided to get tough with us? >> then they get poor too, unfortunately. >> they want our economy working. >> so there is nothing to worry about, charles? >> there is a lot to worry about. what struck me about the trip is that "the new york times," "the washington post," "l.a. times" talked openly about what a failure the trip was. this is the pages of a liberal ms. piper's basically saying that he went to china and that nothing on -- of liberal newspapers saying that he might attack and that nothing on iran, -- he went to china and got nothing on iran, nothing on climate change, and on equal operating. strain -- and the collaborating our exchange rates. why did he go and what did he
12:12 am
achieve? a president ought to have at least something wired in advance. in japan, there was nothing mired in advance, and nothing happening in south korea. >> when it comes to trading currency, this seems to be one set of rules for the chinese and another set for the united states. >> it is a question of clout. they are in a position where they have to be spoken to with great care. they are a huge market, they have the credit. 20 years ago, china was a borrower, and now ithey are going to africa with billions of dollars. this is the new china. they are a strong competitor. >> here is the interesting headline -- blackstone, one of these private equity firms on
12:13 am
wall street, did a giant deal in chinese currency, not using u.s. dollars. they are going to china and playing by their rules with their money. they know where the action is. wittingly or unwittingly, they are helping the american eclipse. >> it is a little bothersome that we manufacture so little. i wish i had an answer to recommend. but we are not manufacturing entirely all of our military equipment. >> senate democrats have a health care bill. >> this bill will not add a dime to the deficit. quite the opposite. it will cut it by $130 billion in the first 10 years. >> it costs $849 billion over 10 years, increases taxes on wealthy americans and insurance companies, cuts in medicare
12:14 am
spending, also. the congressional budget office says the bill would reduce the federal deficit by $130 billion in the first 10 years, as you just heard senator reid say. dubai that? >> the frog to -- do you buy that? >> the fraudulent of these numbers is absolutely staggering. the benefits that take in 2015 -- the outlays are for half of that decade. the spending cuts kick in in the beginning. 10 years of money in, five years of outlay, so of course it will produce a surplus. if you start in 2015 and go until the end of time, the amount of deficit added every decade will be half a trillion. once you start with a program -- once you start where the program starts, it will cause a huge deficit annually. that is an absolutely phony number -- >> charles is right, this bill
12:15 am
as if this will fraud. -- this bill is a fiscal fraud. if we were honest about it, we would say that we if not dealt with the cost and that we will have to deal with. the ticket down the road and we have to deal with that later. -- we take it down the road and deal with it later. >> it tries to do something about cost it its starts down that road. >> it doesn't. >> no -- unlike the house bill, it tries to do something about cost. i am not saying it is ideal, but we have to start this. if we don't get a health care bill this time -- >> the united states government made a decision not to attack because problem because the only way you do that is to go away doctors are put -- wrote the way
12:16 am
doctors are paid. >> you have to put them on salary? >> yes, you have to change the basic system of paying doctors or you will never deal with the cost problem, never. >> the ama must love that. >> look, he was not going to get the medicare sit -- you are not going to get the medicare savings they're talking about. congress is not going to let that happen. also, this bill that we're talking about that they may vote on this weekend as far as cloture is not the bill that is going to come out of the senate if it comes out of the sand. this is to get the bill to the floor where the amendment process gets started. >> it is already a couple of thousand pages. >> they will add some more while they are there. >> we just had a segment in
12:17 am
which we talked about how we were hostage to the chinese because of our debt and our deficit. here we are with the absence of health care, cbo projects an increase in the deficit of $9 trillion over a decade. now we are going to create a new entitlement that will add another half-trillion on it and then complain that somehow our economy has too much debt. >> and if we don't do something about health care, we will be totally uncompetitive. every other modern civilization, modern country and the world, the government pays for health care. this is why people in america support some sort of universal health care. we cannot do it this way anymore and be competitive. >> all of those countries are hemorrhaging as a result. >> not the way we are. >> the british and canadians,
12:18 am
who have a single payer system, are drowning in debt as a result of their health care. >> not compared to us. >> there is a tank -- tax increase and the future. >> who is it going to tax? >> those behind the tree. >> very reassuring, thank you very much. let's talk about the confusion about mammograms. >> it may not be politically correct, but i think this is about money and politics, the beginning of rationing care, and i don't think it is about the health of individual women. >> there was one doctor who disagrees. the government advisory task force made recommendations about the frequency of mammograms, causing a furor in the medical community. the guidelines greeted by a panel of 60 helped officials concluded that -- created by a panel of 16 health-care officials concluded that
12:19 am
mammograms are not necessary before 50 and only every two years after that. what do you think, nina? >> i am for setting standards that make medical and economic sense, but who are you going to believe cut your own damn eyes or something else? everybody knows somebody who has discovered cancer with a mammogram. what is odd about the recommendations of this panel is that it would singularly -- i am not sure how you can make that recommendation without a critical mass of oncologist. >> oncologists are not people who do epidemiological studies. jubes the recommendation on studies of large numbers of women -- you pay is the recommendation on studies of large numbers of women, not on
12:20 am
anecdotes. it is not about cost, it is about the health benefits and health risks of over screening. one in 10 of the cancer diagnoses is a false positive, which leads to more diagnosis, more radiation, often surgical intervention, and on the basis of that, the epidemiologists in the study concluded that it would be beneficial to start and 50, and in acrobat -- in the aggregate, detrimental if you start earlier, with a mass screening. not if you have families to come in which case you want to have the screening. if you have no risk factors, it makes sense to started 50 and not 40. >> women with no family history developed cancer in the 30's. >> in their 20s as well. nobody recommends mass screening
12:21 am
at 820. >> - -- in their 20s. >> the panel is specifically set up to look up only the health consequences of the issue, not the financial or economic impact. to suggest that this the first step towards some kind of russian -- we at that this is the first step towards some kind of rationing when there is no evidence of that is very irresponsible. >> science and evidence shows that they are right, that you more harm than good with early screening. >> i don't buy that. >> i think the evidence is overwhelming that is true. but years of believing that you have to do early tests and early preventions and run to the doctor, that is so deep into our culture that if you challenge that, even if you do it intelligently, as this panel has, it creates a huge fear of
12:22 am
rationing, oh, my gosh, and that is what is so hard to say. >> what is the harm? >> false positives can lead to tests that actually have consequences. slow-growth cancers that should not be dealt with it creates more death. >> they discovered as a result of two to to epidemiological studies that breast self examination has no use whatsoever. it makes no difference in health outcomes. doctors no longer teach women self examination. here we have had decades and decades of indoctrination on how important it is, you have to spend every day, doctors all teaching this. it is not recommended that it ought to be stopped because it is aware -- start resource -- is now recommended that it ought to
12:23 am
be stopped because it is a waste of resources. >> there are two big things people were being told to do that they are suddenly being told not to do. there are leading doctors all of the country who say it has nothing to do with costs, but they think they came to the wrong conclusion. you cannot just sort of his off by saying, "oh, well, they are rob." -- wrong." >> there was a hearing up at the hill where angry members of congress, republicans, to be sure, took on the secretary of the treasury and were calling for his head. there were not only angry ones out there. >> there is a large populism brewing up on the hill, anger in every sense. it has humorous aspects. but some of it is not so funny. there was a bill that passed the house this week, representative paul, that would take away the
12:24 am
powers of the fed and give them to congress. if you think that congress ought to be making policy for the fed, you ought to move to australia. is really a dangerous thing, i hope obama vetoes it. >> back in the early 1980's, when we were in the last huge recession, which was probably not as bad as this month, the democrats on the help and were trying to -- democrats on the hill than were trying to deepen a strip the fed -- emasculate the fed -- >> i thought that meant throwing out the window. >> if they could not defend a straight, they wanted to emasculate --. if they could not be finished it, they wanted to emasculate. all the big words i know. >> that is what i had my legs crossed. [laughter] >> we are going to give you a mammogram. >> walking the halls of congress, the then-chairman
12:25 am
hated the fed, and let a single ad campaign to strip -- >> defenestrate -- >> strip the fed of its powers. the institutions are not well understood. it is independent, it has enormous powers, which it demonstrated over the last 18 months. they are trying to find a way to make it more responsive. this is a shot across the bell. -- bow. you cannot allow that to happen to the fed and have a functioning central bank. >> some of this crazy populism is working up a head of steam. it is dangerous. >> i agree. a lot of it is not a destructive. stripping the fed -- of ita lott
12:26 am
is not spent a lot of it is destructive. but there is a healthy aspect of the populism. the government's takeover of health care would start with this buil -- bill. it is a primitive but simple truth, that health care is so complicated, such enormous complexity and interactions, that if you have the government imposing new rules and regulations and commissions and assessments like the breast cancer assessment and others on this system, it is going to make it a complete disaster. i think actually that sentiment is a complete disaster. >> make it a complete disaster? what is it now? >> hours is the best health-care system and it will put its not a -- efficient -- best health-care system in the world but is not efficient -- >> it dictates what doctors can
12:27 am
and cannot do. >> and liberals want universal medicare. that is essentially what they want it is out of control and has all the -- >> you three guys actually love to these recommendations by the federal panel on mammograms, number one, and part of the recommendations are from the doctor, but if you do not have helped her, you do not have a doctor to consult. >> see you next week. for a transcript of this broadcast, log on to
12:28 am
12:29 am


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on